A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 3 Mar 2010 06:59 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:9caab617-30ba-4b16-86d0-d011d15d1b95(a)33g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... > On 3 Mar, 02:49, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> I think perhaps his phrasing was clumsy. I think he *MEANT* to say was: >> >> == >> No. Evolution's acceptance is not for the sole reason that it passed the >> tests of falsifiability(there are other reasons). Indeed, that it passed >> the tests of falsifiability is not one of the reasons it is accepted at >> all). >> == >> >> It still is an odd thing to say. > > What I meant to say was that the question of whether evolution is > falsifiable is a complete red herring. Not if it is to be taken as a scientific theory > Whether or not it is > falsifiable, and whether or not we agree that it is falsifiable, has > absolutely no bearing on the reasons for the acceptance of evolution. It is accepted primarily because it is a model whose prediction agree with what we observe in nature. If they did not agree with what we see in nature, then it would be rejected. That the things it predicts could (conceviably) NOT be the case in nature means it is falsifiable. > Indeed, the theory of evolution was conceived long before > falsificationism was ever articulated by Popper, Falsification was around long before Popper. you give him too much credit. > and evolution remains > long after falsificationism has been discarded by philosophers of > science as a means of demarcation. It hasn't. It is still a requirement of an hypothesis if it is to be official elevated to the status of a theory. Although some hypothesis are incorrectly and prematurely called 'theories', mostly out of laziness and the ambiguity of the term.
From: Peter Webb on 3 Mar 2010 07:30 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:a04e3531-34b5-43af-822a-d5e86de1b51b(a)z11g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... > On 3 Mar, 02:02, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > wrote: >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:c122829f-64e2-4568-a3c8-56796b4c6895(a)g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... >> >> > On 2 Mar, 09:15, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> >> > wrote: >> >> And hence, when I say I want to discuss things instead >> >> of just going off and reading a book, it's not because I'm being >> >> awkward or just want to sound off cranky ideas to an audience, but >> >> because I genuinely apprehend that the interactive discussion is >> >> necessary for the questions at hand. >> >> >> _____________________________ >> >> That is obviously not true. You don't ask questions trying to learn. >> >> You >> >> state your open disbelief that SR is true, >> >> > Peter, I can only put you to the proof of showing where I said I >> > disbelieved SR. >> >> That is incoherent. > > What on Earth is incoherent about saying "I do not accept that I said > what you claim I have said, therefore I put you to the proof of > showing *where* I said what you claim I have said"? > > The incoherent bit is the stuff between "I do not accept .." and "... I have said." (The second time you say it) > >> You say you are here to learn about SR. > > I am here to learn more about the *conceptual basis* of SR. > Minkowksi space time? > > >> Do you believe SR is true? > > I accept it's mathematical form has some obvious truth, yes. > Do you believe that it correctly predicts the results of every experiment that it claims to? That clocks run slower, and 80 foot ladders can fit through 40 feet barns, and that the speed of light is measured the same in every intertial frame of reference and this speed is independent of the speed of the emitter, receiver, and underlying medium of transmission? If you believe all of those things, then you are saying more than "SR has some obvious truths in its mathematical form" you are saying it is an accurate portrayal of reality - ie, what happens when you conduct those experiments, what physically and actually happens, is exactly as predicted by Relativity. If, on the other hand, you do not believe in the twin "paradox" actually happening, you don't believe in SR. If you do believe the predictions of SR that one twin is older, then you believe that time dilation is more than some mathematical fiction, its what actually happens in the real world. So, when relativity predicts that one twin will age more than the other, is this just some mathematical truth, or is it what really happens as well? > > >> >> you criticise science as a whole when you are >> >> pretending to try and learn it, >> >> > I have only "criticised" science in the sense of objecting to the >> > patent inaccuracies, or even mendacities, that are perpetuated by some >> > who claim to follow science. >> >> That is not true. That is not the only criticism, > > It really depends on what you perceive as a criticism. Being called "mendacious" ? So, do you believe that SR is correct in its prediction (for example) that if one twin were to be sent off into space at 0.9c for 10 years they would have aged less on their return than the twin that stayed at home? Do you agree its correct when it says that an 80 foot ladder could fit inside a 40 foot barn? You seem to agree they are "mathematical truths". Do you also agree those equations correctly predict the outcomes of real world experiments, which means they are far more than simply "mathematical truths"?
From: Peter Webb on 3 Mar 2010 07:40 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:899e0123-23bd-47d9-b8d6-d32f3a59e32b(a)g10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > On 3 Mar, 02:15, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > wrote: >> Next, what is the fundamental cause (confining ourselves to SR) of >> this non-simultaneity? As I say, as far as I can tell, it's a simple >> function of the finite speed of propagation. But I'm told that it >> isn't, so I need to know on what grounds a simple propagation >> explanation does not suffice. >> >> ________________________________ >> Hey! You asked a question about SR ! Far out! >> >> The ultimate reason (or, more accurately "an" ultimate reason) is that >> the >> speed of light is the same in all inertial reference frames, and does not >> depend on the speeds of two different observers. This makes the >> propagation >> delay a function of the frame of reference you pick, and not a function >> of >> the underlying dynamics. > > I won't pretend to understand how this is supposedly not a function of > the speed of propagation. Try and express your question more clearly. What is it that you don't understand? You can't understand why what exactly is not a function of the speed of propagation of what, exactly? If it is the speed of the underlying medium, observer or sender, in another thread I gave quite a long explanation to you of how this comes about from Maxwell's equations, using no mathematics at all. You may recall that the form of equation of water and sound wave has the wave exchanging energy with their medium; this is not true of the equations in Maxwell where the E and M vectors exchange energy between themselves and not the medium in which they travel. This would also answer another question you asked. Recently you asked for evidence of your inability to learn; I gave some at the time, of course, but lets add this as another excellent example. You asked the same question yesterday, the answer was explained to you, but you do not appear to have learned anything at all. There you go!
From: Bruce Richmond on 3 Mar 2010 07:42 On Mar 3, 1:55 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > Assuming that SR is wrong is a stupid starting place for somebody with > > > your > > > obviously modest understanding of physics. > > > There is a difference between requesting clarification/derivation and > > saying something is wrong. I wrote, "Actually when I personally > > started studying relativity I did not start by believing it was > > false. I assumed that since so many great men of > > science considered it to be correct that it probably was. But at the > > same time I expected a clear, understandable explaination of how it > > works. Never got one. And the more people insisted that it's just > > the way nature works, the more it drove me away." > > > Nowhere in there did I say that I assumed SR to be wrong. What quite > > often happens though is that when someone asks a question they are > > jumped on for not accepting SR as gospel without question. After all, > > look at all the much smarter people that have accepted it ;) > > > _______________________________ > > OK, your position is that SR is correct, but you don't understand it? > > Nope. I didn't understand it at one time, but that was some time > ago. How long have you had problems reading? > > ______________________ > I don't. You don't understand SR? Well there are folks around here that do that might be willing to help you, if you read what they write. BTW, are you ever going to learn to quote properly? > Just to clarify your position: > > 1. You agree SR is correct. > 2. You feel you understand why it is correct. > > Jolly good, and three cheers for you!- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Peter Webb on 3 Mar 2010 07:51
I'm not gloating because some here were proved wrong. I'm gloating because some people so emphatically charged me with "idiocy" and "ignorance", "a slave to my intuitions", etc. _________________________ But hold it. You are an idiot, ignorant, and a slave to your intuitions. Well, you think you know more about SR than real life physicists; that makes you an idiot. You are ignorant (in the context of this thread) because you know almost nothing about SR, including apparently any of the maths; and you have repeatedly claimed that you would trust your intuitions over the predictions of SR. Incidentally, I have a question for you. Two twins are separated. One is sent to a star 10 light years away and back at 0.9c each way, for a total trip time of about 22 years. The twins meet up again. What does your intuition tell you? That they will still be the same age? What do you think actually happens? |